A RECENT article in this paper suggested a “giant international conspiracy” in the bipartisan effort to preserve the co-location model of eye care in California.

Critics and opponents are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. When the facts are distorted, the public, or in this case, the consumer is hurt.

The co-location model in question is a model that has existed in California for 25 years. It simply allows a patient who may also be an eyeglass consumer to receive their medical care in the same place that they can purchase their eyewear. It is consistent with the purpose of the Knox-Keene Act because it allows for competition between “for-profit and non-profit health plans resulting in greater availability of affordable health care for all Californians.”

To consumers, the co-location model is exactly the same thing they see when they visit a private practice optometrist who offers eyeglasses for purchase at his or her office.

The bill I authored, AB778, merely preserves the way Californians currently receive eye care services. My legislation clarifies an existing vagueness in the law, thereby codifying the current co-location practice.

These practices have provided jobs for thousands of California optometrists and have served millions of California consumers for decades. If California banned co-location models, it would be one of only three states to do so.

Yet to hear the critics, a nefarious plot is underway. This plot to give Californians quality eye care at an affordable price must be stopped, according to these critics. This claim is supported by arguments that are incomplete and inaccurate.

Some critics say that courts have ruled against the co-location model. While three lawsuits have been filed in 25 years, none of the litigation has been resolved in conflict with this bill.

Others suggest that AB778 would change state law. This bill confirms existing law and clarifies questions that have arisen due to the interpretations of two different code sections. Furthermore, my legislation is not just supported by one company but by a broad coalition of optometrists, community leaders, health organizations, and businesses across California.

Opponents claim that consumers suffer because of the incentives in the co-location model. Again, I would like to point out that private practice optometrists make up approximately 90 percent of the market and their patients aren’t hurt by the fact that their business model includes generating profit by the sale of prescribed eyewear.

With the existing oversight by the Board of Optometry, all optometrists can be trusted to prescribe the best diagnostic services and treatment for their patients, including selling eyeglasses.

There is even less reason to fear unethical behavior when doctors do not receive compensation based on the sale of the products they prescribe. Co-located optometrists employed by health plans receive no financial benefits from eyewear sales.

Additionally, co-location models adhere to strict oversight and regulation by three state agencies, with added oversight unlike private optometrists.

AB778 restates the Knox-Keene protections against “lay control” and one of the authors of Knox-Keene confirmed in an amicus brief that: “The Knox-Keene Act regulatory structure satisfies any concerns that might arise about excessive lay or corporate influence on medical decision-making “… .” It replaces traditional regulation with “heightened, more effective regulatory oversight.”

I authored this bill because the facts are clear to me: the co-location model is an effective way to help California’s patients get the eye care they need and California consumers get the eyewear they need. The co-location model also allows for convenient locations, like a shopping mall at times that work for their busy lives, such as on weekends. And the co-location model is strictly regulated by the state to ensure quality patient care.

Let’s not forget what this issue is all about: patient access and choice. The goal of public policy is to help people, not make their lives more difficult. That’s why we need AB778 — to help people get the eye care they deserve. Now that’s a goal we should all fix our eyes on.

Assemblywoman Toni Atkins represents the 76th District in the California Assembly, which is located in the San Diego area.

More in News

Monday, Feb. 19 Vehicle theft: A 2003 Ford E150 van was stolen overnight from Feb. 16-17 from the 1800 block of Arlington Boulevard. Warrant: A 32-year-old female from Richmond was arrested on a Marin County burglary warrant at Cutting Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue. Warrant: A 28-year-old transient man was arrested at the Lucky Supermarket at 1000 El Cerrito Plaza...